DIS: Re: BUS: Registration
On 28 June 2011 18:12, Joshua Murphy math...@ymail.com wrote: I hereby register with the nickname of Math321. Welcome! -- Charles Walker
DIS: Election Proto
Proto-proposal:
{{ Unfortunately, babies will die (AI 3)
Amend Rule 2154 (Election Procedure) by replacing the final paragraph with:
A valid vote in an election consists of an ordered list of valid
votes (possibly only one). The voter is initially considered to
have chosen the first vote in the list.
Upon the resolution of this decision, its outcome (if a
candidate) is installed into the office, and the election ends.
Amend Rule 955 (Determining the Will of Agora) by replacing
(c) Otherwise, the outcome is the option with the most votes.
In case of a tie, the vote collector SHALL select one of the
leaders as the outcome. If there are no options, the outcome
is null.
with:
(c) If the decision is an election for an office, the outcome is
decided as follows:
- Each voter is considered to have voted for the
highest-ranked option (or PRESENT) in eir vote which has not
been eliminated as described below.
- If any option receives a majority of valid, non-PRESENT
votes, then this option is the outcome.
- Otherwise, the option with the least votes is eliminated
until an option has a majority of valid, non-PRESENT votes,
at which point this option is selected by Agora as the
outcome.
(d) Otherwise, the outcome is the option with the most votes. In
case of a tie, the vote collector SHALL select one of the
leaders as the outcome. If there are no options, the outcome
is null.
}}
--
Charles Walker
DIS: This message may not have been sent by
Are any other Gmail users getting an annoying This message may not have been sent by: at the top of all of their own messages to the lists? -- Charles Walker
Re: DIS: This message may not have been sent by
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 03:54, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Are any other Gmail users getting an annoying This message may not have been sent by: at the top of all of their own messages to the lists? -- Charles Walker Not to my own messages, but I am getting that warning from all messages sent by you.
Re: DIS: This message may not have been sent by
On 29 June 2011 10:03, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: Not to my own messages, but I am getting that warning from all messages sent by you. ditto How are you sending them?
Re: DIS: This message may not have been sent by
On 29 June 2011 11:09, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote: On 29 June 2011 10:03, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: Not to my own messages, but I am getting that warning from all messages sent by you. ditto How are you sending them? Just through https://mail.google.com, as per usual. -- Charles Walker
Re: DIS: This message may not have been sent by
On 29 June 2011 11:19, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Just through https://mail.google.com, as per usual. Would your account happen to be @googlemail.com rather than @gmail.com? Or have a different number of dots in its true name?
Re: DIS: This message may not have been sent by
On 29 June 2011 11:30, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote: On 29 June 2011 11:19, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Just through https://mail.google.com, as per usual. Would your account happen to be @googlemail.com rather than @gmail.com? Or have a different number of dots in its true name? It was @googlemail.com but I changed it to @gmail.com a while back. I can still sign in as @googlemail.com though, and messages sent to either address work. -- Charles Walker
Re: DIS: This message may not have been sent by
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 03:54, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Are any other Gmail users getting an annoying This message may not have been sent by: at the top of all of their own messages to the lists? -- Charles Walker Not to my own messages, but I am getting that warning from all messages sent by you. I'm experiencing the same thing: only Walker's emails are flagged like this. ~ Roujo
Re: DIS: This message may not have been sent by
On 29 June 2011 11:49, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote: It was @googlemail.com but I changed it to @gmail.com a while back. I can still sign in as @googlemail.com though, and messages sent to either address work. It's gone now. Did you change something?
Re: DIS: This message may not have been sent by
On 29 June 2011 13:17, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote: On 29 June 2011 11:49, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote: It was @googlemail.com but I changed it to @gmail.com a while back. I can still sign in as @googlemail.com though, and messages sent to either address work. It's gone now. Did you change something? Nope. How strange. -- Charles Walker
Re: DIS: This message may not have been sent by
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Are any other Gmail users getting an annoying This message may not have been sent by: at the top of all of their own messages to the lists? Does this mean that Walker's claims of identity in messages for the next month don't self-ratify?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration
From: ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 8:11 PM Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration I can't get to mail classic, Yahoo removed the option to use it because they're strongly encouraging people to use the new interface. Also, since I'm not using mail plus, I can't use a client, just the webmail. So... what now? On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 17:03 -0700, Joshua Murphy wrote: Sorry again. I'm kinda new at this. I'll use a divider made out of -'s from now on. Anybody know a way to make yahoo bottom-post by default? I think I'm the only other Yahoo! user here, and I mostly use a separate client, communicating with Yahoo! via POP3 and SMTP, which avoids the issue entirely, as it's only acting as a relay and not an editor as well. When I'm using the webmail interface, though, my options are to use the Classic interface, and General | Mode | Compose messages as plain text in the options. It sets things up using quoting like most clients, and is suitable for top- or bottom-posting (just move the cursor to the top or bottom respectively before you start typing); the major issue is that it screws up line-wrapping, and I often have to fix that by hand. (A tip: although the message that is quoted will be line-wrapped, you should write your own message in one long line, inserting line breaks only for paragraph breaks, or it'll look insane when it arrives.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration
From: Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 10:20 PM Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration On 29 June 2011 01:03, Joshua Murphy math...@ymail.com wrote: Sorry again. I'm kinda new at this. I'll use a divider made out of -'s from now on. Anybody know a way to make yahoo bottom-post by default? Your email was still sent as HTML, not plain text; the divider doesn't matter. (You may be able to send as plain text by turning off any formatting options in the compose screen, or by selecting to not send email as HTML in your preferences screen). I know ais523 sometimes posts from Yahoo, so he should be able to help. Is this better? For now, I can't do the thing, but at least I've figured out how to do plain text.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration
- Original Message - From: Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org Cc: Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 10:21 PM Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration By the way, no need to be sorry; many new players have problems sending their emails right to start with. Welcome! :) - Thank you! :D -Joshua
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration
On 29 June 2011 14:48, Joshua Murphy math...@ymail.com wrote: Is this better? For now, I can't do the thing, but at least I've figured out how to do plain text. This is better, although your style of quoting is a bit confusing/wastes some space in at least my mail client. Nevertheless, not very important, and much better than before; welcome to the game!
DIS: Re: BUS: Chamber CFJ
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 5:32 AM, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote: I CFJ on Chamber is a switch. Arguments: FALSE as no officer tracks it. The same goes for adoption index, which means that no recent proposals have actually had an adoption index. This might mean that proposals with a simple majority but not VI = AI actually passed. See CFJ 3020. In my opinion, such objects are not switches but act like switches in every way.
DIS: Re: BUS: Chamber CFJ
On 29 June 2011 16:51, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: On 11-06-29 02:32 AM, Charles Walker wrote: I CFJ on Chamber is a switch. Arguments: FALSE as no officer tracks it. The same goes for adoption index, which means that no recent proposals have actually had an adoption index. This might mean that proposals with a simple majority but not VI= AI actually passed. See CFJ 3020. I intend, with two support, to file a motion to reconsider. While I'm not sure if I agree at all with the conclusion that AI is a useless property, I would note that any comparison against an undefined value is, by convention, false where a value is required. Since the judge has entered the statement about VI = AI into his arguments, I feel compelled to request reconsideration so that this does not become precedent. Sean Erm, what? -- Charles Walker
DIS: Re: BUS: Chamber CFJ
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: I intend, with two support, to file a motion to reconsider. While I'm not sure if I agree at all with the conclusion that AI is a useless property, I would note that any comparison against an undefined value is, by convention, false where a value is required. Since the judge has entered the statement about VI = AI into his arguments, I feel compelled to request reconsideration so that this does not become precedent. He was calling the CFJ, not judging it.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Chamber CFJ
On 11-06-29 09:03 AM, Charles Walker wrote: On 29 June 2011 16:51, Sean Huntscsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: On 11-06-29 02:32 AM, Charles Walker wrote: I CFJ on Chamber is a switch. Arguments: FALSE as no officer tracks it. The same goes for adoption index, which means that no recent proposals have actually had an adoption index. This might mean that proposals with a simple majority but not VI= AI actually passed. See CFJ 3020. I intend, with two support, to file a motion to reconsider. While I'm not sure if I agree at all with the conclusion that AI is a useless property, I would note that any comparison against an undefined value is, by convention, false where a value is required. Since the judge has entered the statement about VI= AI into his arguments, I feel compelled to request reconsideration so that this does not become precedent. Sean Erm, what? You put an irrelevant statement which I believe to be incorrect into your arguments. I have to file a motion to reconsider to get it out. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Chamber CFJ
On 11-06-29 09:31 AM, omd wrote: On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Sean Huntscsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: I intend, with two support, to file a motion to reconsider. While I'm not sure if I agree at all with the conclusion that AI is a useless property, I would note that any comparison against an undefined value is, by convention, false where a value is required. Since the judge has entered the statement about VI= AI into his arguments, I feel compelled to request reconsideration so that this does not become precedent. He was calling the CFJ, not judging it. Oh. Move along, nothing to see here. -scshunt
Re: DIS: This message may not have been sent by
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: I'm now seeing this on the first message in any thread to the lists if it was posted by a gmail user. I wonder if gmail's suddenly not liking how the mailing list is resending messages from gmail users. I bug reported it.
DIS: Re: BUS: Enforcement Enforcement
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote: If a player violates a Rule by failing to meet the requirements of an office, such as performing eir weekly or monthly duties, then the IADoP SHALL initiate a valid criminal case on the matter as soon as possible afterwards. Cases initiated in this manner do not count towards the IADoP's excess case limit, Rules to the contrary notwithstanding. This will cause a lot of frivolous cases.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Enforcement Enforcement
On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 12:35 -0400, omd wrote: On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote: If a player violates a Rule by failing to meet the requirements of an office, such as performing eir weekly or monthly duties, then the IADoP SHALL initiate a valid criminal case on the matter as soon as possible afterwards. Cases initiated in this manner do not count towards the IADoP's excess case limit, Rules to the contrary notwithstanding. This will cause a lot of frivolous cases. Replace the IADoP with Wooble, and I'd be in favour of it. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
On 29 June 2011 17:54, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: Proposal: Victory case changes (AI=1.7) Please could you word this not to clash with my related proposal? You just need to change the first line to If X has been adopted, replace the second paragraph, otherwise the first, with. -- Charles Walker
DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scroll of Agora
On 11-06-10 09:28 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: GRAND HERO OF AGORA NOMIC Peter Suber, Chuck Carroll, Douglas Hofstadter HERO OF AGORA NOMIC Murphy These should be moved to the forefront. -scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: You're a man^Wnomic now!
- Original Message -
From: Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 2:10 PM
Subject: BUS: You're a man^Wnomic now!
I come off hold.
Proposal: 18th Birthday Bash
{{{
Award the patent title Coming of Age to every person who was an active player
at some point during Agora's 18th Birthday.
}}}
-scshunt
- Original Message ends -
I support this.
Re: DIS: Election Proto
Proto-proposal:
{{ Unfortunately, babies will die (AI 3)
Amend Rule 2154 (Election Procedure) by replacing the final paragraph with:
A valid vote in an election consists of an ordered list of valid
votes (possibly only one).
This is problematic. I'm basing the rest of this on what I think you intended
to do with this, which is create the idea of a way to vote 1st place, 2nd
place, etc. I'll call the list a (valid) Votelist, to distinguish it from the
votes.
The voter is initially considered to
have chosen the first vote in the list.
And I'll call this vote the Active Vote. I would rewrite: The voter's Active
Vote is initially considered to be the first vote on their Votelist.
Upon the resolution of this decision, its outcome (if a
candidate) is installed into the office, and the election ends.
I haven't looked at the ruleset, but, if its outcome is not a candidate, is
there some rule that handles that situation?
[snip]
- Each voter is considered to have voted for the
highest-ranked option (or PRESENT) in eir vote which has not
been eliminated as described below.
Each voter is considered to have voted their Active Vote. It seems awkward to
say 'voted for their Active Vote,' but I'm not entirely happy with what I came
up with either.
[snip]
- Otherwise, the option with the least votes is eliminated
until an option has a majority of valid, non-PRESENT votes,
at which point this option is selected by Agora as the
outcome.
Aaaand this is where I get lost. This should be the mechanism that changes the
Active Votes, to lower-ranked votes in the Votelist, but I'm not sure what you
were trying to do here. In your second votes did you mean, votes in every
Votelist, regardless of their Activeness? If so, you should probably add a
uniqueness clause to the definition of a Votelist. It might suffice to say
set instead of list, since I don't think set is ruleset-defined.
But as it is written now, it doesn't seem to consider other votes as Active
Votes, and it doesn't seem to change any outcome, so I'm confused. (This is all
assuming your votes is my votes and not my Votelists, because you said
non-PRESENT, and it's very unclear what would comprise a PRESENT Votelist)
-Turiski
DIS: Re: BUS: Birthday
- Original Message - From: Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com To: agora-business agora-busin...@agoranomic.org Cc: Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 2:13 PM Subject: BUS: Birthday Happy Birthday Agora! -- Charles Walker - Original Message ends - HAPPY BIRTHDAY! *Blows party blower thingy.*
DIS: Re: BUS: Happy birthday, Agora!
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: I award myself a Magenta Ribbon. I play GGAGCB GGAGDC GGGECBA FFECDC.
DIS: Re: BUS: Birthday
- Original Message - From: Eric Stucky turiski.no...@gmail.com To: Business agora-busin...@agoranomic.org Cc: Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 2:24 PM Subject: BUS: Birthday Happy Birthday! (and hurray to me for being oblivious to timezones! Woot!) I Dance a Powerful Dance. Happy Birthday Agora! I support. I award myself a Magenta Ribbon. I support and do so. [ -Turiski ] - Original Message ends - I award myself a Magenta Ribbon and support any and all Magenta Ribbon self-awards until the Birthday is over. I Dance a Powerful (and slightly lame) Dance. HAPPY BIRTHDAY! *Gives everyone cakes that are lies.*
DIS: Re: BUS: Happy birthday, Agora!
I send the public message ais523 sent approximately one hour and one minute ago with a subject line containing Happy birthday, Agora!. —Tanner L. Swett
DIS: Re: BUS: Happy birthday!
On 06/29/11 12:45, Aaron Goldfein wrote: Agora can make its own decisions. If, at any time, Agora wishes to counteract a decision, then that decision, rules to the contrary notwithstanding, has no effect. The game of Agora, but not any player of it, can make arbitrary changes to the gamestate. I'd love this if it included some historical context for the players 5 years from now. WHEREAS Agora is now 18 years of age, and WHEREAS 18 years is the age of majority in a large majority of nations in the developed world, and etc. -scshunt
Re: DIS: This message may not have been sent by
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: I'm now seeing this on the first message in any thread to the lists if it was posted by a gmail user. I wonder if gmail's suddenly not liking how the mailing list is resending messages from gmail users. That must be it. =) ~ Roujo
DIS: Re: BUS: Happy birthday!
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: Happy 18th birthday, Agora! Since Agora is now a legal adult in most countries, I think it's appropriate that we stop telling it what to do and let the game decide for itself how to alter its ruleset, gamestate, etc. Proposal: Agora, Adult (AI = 3) Enact a new power-3 rule with the following text: Agora can make its own decisions. If, at any time, Agora wishes to counteract a decision, then that decision, rules to the contrary notwithstanding, has no effect. The game of Agora, but not any player of it, can make arbitrary changes to the gamestate. inb4 scam. Oh wait, that always happens anyway. =P ~ Roujo
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Happy birthday!
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: On 06/29/11 12:45, Aaron Goldfein wrote: Agora can make its own decisions. If, at any time, Agora wishes to counteract a decision, then that decision, rules to the contrary notwithstanding, has no effect. The game of Agora, but not any player of it, can make arbitrary changes to the gamestate. I'd love this if it included some historical context for the players 5 years from now. WHEREAS Agora is now 18 years of age, and WHEREAS 18 years is the age of majority in a large majority of nations in the developed world, and etc. -scshunt I support this. =) ~ Roujo
DIS: Re: BUS: Happy birthday!
From: Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 3:45 PM Subject: BUS: Happy birthday! Seconded. -Math321 aka Joshua aka Math321 Happy 18th birthday, Agora! Since Agora is now a legal adult in most countries, I think it's appropriate that we stop telling it what to do and let the game decide for itself how to alter its ruleset, gamestate, etc. Proposal: Agora, Adult (AI = 3) Enact a new power-3 rule with the following text: Agora can make its own decisions. If, at any time, Agora wishes to counteract a decision, then that decision, rules to the contrary notwithstanding, has no effect. The game of Agora, but not any player of it, can make arbitrary changes to the gamestate.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Flawless Victory
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:36 AM, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote: A person can publish a Declaration of Victory by announcement, explaining the Victory Condition they believe they have met and how they met it. If a Victory Case is initiated regarding a Declaration of Victory, no Declarations of Victory for that win can be announced after that point. Otherwise, the person is deemed to have won the game of Agora as described in the Declaration of Victory one week after eir Declaration of Victory is published. The Declaration of Victory's claim that the specified player won in the specified way becomes self-ratifying at this point. The Herald SHALL award the winner the Patent Title Champion as soon as possible afterwards. This is a mess: it's unclear whether the claim self-ratifies immediately after it is made self-ratifying or just misses the deadline, for example; but there is no use in self-ratifying something that doesn't affect the gamestate (at least if you subscribe to my view that the gamestate does not include history, such as whether someone won), and in any case the ratified statement (the person won as described) seems to conflict with the previous statement (the person won one week later). What benefit does this offer versus victory cases?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Happy birthday!
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Joshua Murphy math...@ymail.com wrote: Seconded. -Math321 aka Joshua aka Math321 FYI, you're still not sending in plain text.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Happy birthday!
From: omd c.ome...@gmail.com To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 6:51 PM Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Happy birthday! On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Joshua Murphy math...@ymail.com wrote: Seconded. -Math321 aka Joshua aka Math321 FYI, you're still not sending in plain text. Sorry, I switched to plain text earlier but I guess it switched back.
DIS: Re: BUS: You're a man^Wnomic now!
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
wrote:
I come off hold.
Proposal: 18th Birthday Bash
{{{
Award the patent title Coming of Age to every person who was an active
player at some point during Agora's 18th Birthday.
}}}
I register as a player.
I wish Agora a very happy 18th birthday.
I deregister.
-root
This one I'm counting as a Delve.
Re: DIS: This message may not have been sent by
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011, Elliott Hird wrote: On 29 June 2011 10:03, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: Not to my own messages, but I am getting that warning from all messages sent by you. ditto Pine FTW!
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Enforcement Enforcement
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011, ais523 wrote: On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 12:35 -0400, omd wrote: On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote: If a player violates a Rule by failing to meet the requirements of an office, such as performing eir weekly or monthly duties, then the IADoP SHALL initiate a valid criminal case on the matter as soon as possible afterwards. Cases initiated in this manner do not count towards the IADoP's excess case limit, Rules to the contrary notwithstanding. This will cause a lot of frivolous cases. Replace the IADoP with Wooble, and I'd be in favour of it. I submit the following proposal, might as well: Enact a Rule with the following text: Wooble is the Pariah.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Flawless Victory
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011, omd wrote: What benefit does this offer versus victory cases? Because Walker won last week, there's absolutely no controversy over the win, and e's probably at least a week away (still) from being recognized through an overwrought and unnecessary? (Was writing to agree with your comments on self-ratification but looks like another draft just appeared). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Enforcement Enforcement
- Original Message - From: Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu To: Agora Discussion agora-discussion@agoranomic.org Cc: Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 7:31 PM Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Enforcement Enforcement On Wed, 29 Jun 2011, ais523 wrote: On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 12:35 -0400, omd wrote: On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote: If a player violates a Rule by failing to meet the requirements of an office, such as performing eir weekly or monthly duties, then the IADoP SHALL initiate a valid criminal case on the matter as soon as possible afterwards. Cases initiated in this manner do not count towards the IADoP's excess case limit, Rules to the contrary notwithstanding. This will cause a lot of frivolous cases. Replace the IADoP with Wooble, and I'd be in favour of it. I submit the following proposal, might as well: Enact a Rule with the following text: Wooble is the Pariah. --- I object.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Flawless Victory
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011, omd wrote: On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:36 AM, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote: A person can publish a Declaration of Victory by announcement, explaining the Victory Condition they believe they have met and how they met it. If a Victory Case is initiated regarding a Declaration of Victory, no Declarations of Victory for that win can be announced after that point. Otherwise, the person is deemed to have won the game of Agora as described in the Declaration of Victory one week after eir Declaration of Victory is published. The Declaration of Victory's claim that the specified player won in the specified way becomes self-ratifying at this point. The Herald SHALL award the winner the Patent Title Champion as soon as possible afterwards. This is a mess: it's unclear whether the claim self-ratifies immediately after it is made self-ratifying or just misses the deadline, for example; but there is no use in self-ratifying something that doesn't affect the gamestate (at least if you subscribe to my view that the gamestate does not include history, such as whether someone won), and in any case the ratified statement (the person won as described) seems to conflict with the previous statement (the person won one week later). Walker, suggested rewrite [simple one-week delay, deferring to Victory Cases when controversies arise]: A player CAN publish a Declaration of Victory, which is a document labelled as such a Declaration, which MUST explain a Rules-defined Victory Condition they believe that an indicated person or persons have met and how they met it. Such declarations are self-ratifying in terms of whether the indicated Victory Condition was met and that the person(s) names as meeting the condition have in fact won the game. The Herald SHALL award the winner the Patent Title Champion to the winning players as soon as possible after such a Declaration self-ratifies. The most appropriate manner of contesting such a Declaration, should a Claim of Error not resolve the controversy, is by initiating a Victory Case regarding the win. Publishing a Declaration of Victory (a) with knowingly false information or (b) for a specific win for which a victory case or inquiry case is already in progress is the Class-3 Crime of Mistrumpeting.
DIS: Re: BUS: Registration
Joshua Murphy wrote: I hereby register with the nickname of Math321. No relation.
DIS: Re: BUS: Happy birthday!
On 06/29/11 18:23, Chuck Carroll wrote: I send many warm wishes to Agora and to all current and former Agorans on the occasion of Agora's 18th birthday. Looking over the ruleset, I find myself doubly astonished at its state, compared to its state when I was last a player many years ago: I am astonished at how much has changed; I am astonished at how much has not changed. But I suppose such is the nature of long-lasting Nomics, and in particular Agora: the wisest, noblest, and most interesting of all nomics (not merely active email nomics), and also the eldest of all active email nomics. Chuck Carroll Grand Hero of Agora Nomic Do you care for the birthday celebration title? Sean
Re: DIS: This message may not have been sent by
G. wrote: Pine FTW! Gah, I remember some of my earliest messages being botched due to CLI mail reader issues (I think it was actually /bin/mail).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Enforcement Enforcement
omd wrote: On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote: If a player violates a Rule by failing to meet the requirements of an office, such as performing eir weekly or monthly duties, then the IADoP SHALL initiate a valid criminal case on the matter as soon as possible afterwards. Cases initiated in this manner do not count towards the IADoP's excess case limit, Rules to the contrary notwithstanding. This will cause a lot of frivolous cases. Nothing prevents the IADoP from retracting a case after e initiates it, but still, yes, there's enough churn with CotC as it is. (I'll likely get everything caught up on Saturday.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Happy birthday!
At 09:56 PM 6/29/2011, you wrote: On 06/29/11 18:23, Chuck Carroll wrote: I send many warm wishes to Agora and to all current and former Agorans on the occasion of Agora's 18th birthday. Looking over the ruleset, I find myself doubly astonished at its state, compared to its state when I was last a player many years ago: I am astonished at how much has changed; I am astonished at how much has not changed. But I suppose such is the nature of long-lasting Nomics, and in particular Agora: the wisest, noblest, and most interesting of all nomics (not merely active email nomics), and also the eldest of all active email nomics. Chuck Carroll Grand Hero of Agora Nomic Do you care for the birthday celebration title? Sean I am content to remain a former player at this time, but thank you for asking. Chuck
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Flawless Victory
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Such declarations are self-ratifying in terms of whether the indicated Victory Condition was met and that the person(s) names as meeting the condition have in fact won the game. ...but are always false, because there is no way for someone to win other than ratification? I still think it's fairly useless to ratify that someone won; it might create the obligation for the Herald to award Champion, but cannot change reality about whether they won at that time or not. My old achievements proto even had this: The Win that Never Was - Be ratified as having won the game at a certain time without actually having won at that time.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Flawless Victory
On 06/29/11 19:36, omd wrote: On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Such declarations are self-ratifying in terms of whether the indicated Victory Condition was met and that the person(s) names as meeting the condition have in fact won the game. ...but are always false, because there is no way for someone to win other than ratification? I still think it's fairly useless to ratify that someone won; it might create the obligation for the Herald to award Champion, but cannot change reality about whether they won at that time or not. My old achievements proto even had this: The Win that Never Was - Be ratified as having won the game at a certain time without actually having won at that time. We previously did self-ratification of the herald's announcement. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Flawless Victory
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011, omd wrote: On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Such declarations are self-ratifying in terms of whether the indicated Victory Condition was met and that the person(s) names as meeting the condition have in fact won the game. ...but are always false, because there is no way for someone to win other than ratification? I still think it's fairly useless to ratify that someone won; it might create the obligation for the Herald to award Champion, but cannot change reality about whether they won at that time or not. Personally, I'd be happy with: (a) Announce a win (b) Wait 4 days or a week to see if anyone calls a case about it, I think 4 days is plenty myself, then (c) Allow Herald to award it if no one raises a Case, otherwise award waits for Case to end. All without ratification. Just so long as the full case doesn't have to be raised every single time. For added protection, maybe allow the Herald to have the option of (instead of awarding the win) call the Case even if the 4 days have passed, and say e SHOULD do so if e thinks there are questions about the win. Makes it the Herald's responsibility to double-check things before the final award. I left self-ratification in as Walker had it in eir draft I was trying to fix, don't really mind! I'd vote for either. I'll leave it up to Walker. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Flawless Victory
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011, omd wrote: On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Personally, I'd be happy with: (a) Announce a win (b) Wait 4 days or a week to see if anyone calls a case about it, for that matter, what's wrong with the old system: (a) announce a win; (b) win platonically succeeds or fails, and Champion is platonically awarded or not; (c) we figure out what happened through inquiry. Well, it's not as scammable. :) I dunno, I was ambivalent about victory cases myself. scshunt? I prefer the old version where the Champion was partial pragmatic; awarded by the Herald (hopefully when e's pretty sure the dust has settled) but the award fails if the win failed. Maybe that's me assuming that Champion will go back to controlling Speaker or something soon so it's better to have an after-the-dust settles announcement set the timing. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Flawless Victory
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: I prefer the old version where the Champion was partial pragmatic; awarded by the Herald (hopefully when e's pretty sure the dust has settled) but the award fails if the win failed. Wasn't e technically violating an ASAP requirement by waiting? (Too tired to look up the rule.)
